Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Opinions about Taiwanese

In order to have a clear classification in types of language motivation, the study adopts Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory (2000: 72). Deci and Ryan divided motivations into three categories according to their regulatory styles: intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and amotivation. Intrinsic motivations describe one’s inherent pleasure and interest in language learning. Thus intrinsic motivations are more related to spontaneous satisfaction while the sense of competence is formed over a voluntarily chosen activity. Extrinsic motivations refer to instrumental reasons in order to achieve some consequence instead of inherent interest. For example, the learning of a language takes place because of the requirement linked to a degree

58

program or to career benefits rather than to enjoyment of the activity per se (Noels, 2001: 45-46). Ryan and Deci (2000: 72) propose several types of extrinsic motivations which vary in the degree of self-determination: external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and integrated regulation.

The least self-determined type is External Regulation, stating that the learning of language is due to some contingency in the environment, like obtaining a reward, a course requirement, or avoidance of losing a job. The next type, Introjected Regulation, refers to the orientation that a student is motivated to learn a language in order to avoid failure or to demonstrate ability. In this type, the student imposes pressures or rewards on him-/herself and thus this type is somewhat more internalized.

The third type, Identified Regulation, is more self-determined. At this degree, a student chooses to be involved in an activity due to some aspects which are regarded to be important. For example, for some students, developing skills in second language is considered to be important for being a good teacher, scholar, or counselor. This type of orientation is different from external regulation. In identified regulation orientation, the action taken to attain a goal is not because of an externally imposed requirement, but because the goal is self-determined to be important. The last type, Integrated Regulation is the most self-determined type of extrinsic orientations. This orientation develops when a student chooses to engage in an activity whose value is fully assimilated to the self. That is, integrated regulation orientation occurs by bringing identified regulations into congruence with one’s values and needs. For example, a person who has no problems on cultural boundaries may view the competence of second language as an inherent part of the person’s self-concept (Ryan and Deci, 2000:

72-73). Noels (2001: 48) draws a distinction between integrated regulation orientation and Gardner’s integrative orientation. Integrative orientation emphasizes the desire to interact and identify with people of the L2 community while integrated regulation

59

orientation does not cover intergroup connotation. Besides, integrative orientations are widely studied in the L2 context whereas integrated regulation is usually considered to be evident only when people are advanced in the activity.

The third category of motivational constructs is Amotivation. This category locates at the opposite end of intrinsic and extrinsic orientations and it refers to the situation in which people do not value and tend to disengage from the activity. Such a case can be explained as “learned helplessness” (Noels, 2001: 48) and it may eventually lead to depression and apathy.

The three categories of motivational constructs lie on a continuum of self-determination in which amotivation is located on the end of non-self-determination, while intrinsic orientation is situated on the other end of self-determination and with extrinsic orientation positioned between the two extreme points.

The current study adopts the ideas of motivation distinction (Gardner and Lambert, 1972) and orientation categorization (Ryan and Deci, 2000). The former distinction provides a broad view of language motivation. However, in analyzing the results of the questionnaire, it would be difficult to draw a clear separation by applying the integrative-instrumental dichotomy. Thus it is better to view motivation as a continuum rather than two rigid points. Deci and Ryan’s (2000) self-determination theory provides an easier and convenient way to categorize the statements of the questionnaire and to analyze results elicited from the subjects, because the orientation types along the self-determination continuum offer a more appropriate explanation to motivations with different degree.

In order to know how the subjects view Taiwanese in different situations, the statements about motivation of speaking Taiwanese (subpart II of section III) and opinions about Taiwanese (statement 1 to statement 13 in subpart III of section III)

60

were put into different groups based on Ryan and Deci’s (2000: 72) self-determination continuum. Table 3.2 below demonstrates the classification of those statements.

Table 3.2. Classification of Language Attitude-Related Statements along the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Orientation

The criteria to categorize the statements are briefly addressed as follows. Firstly, the issues about transmission and identity were categorized as intrinsic orientation.

Because the awareness of transmitting language and the sense of identity originate from highly autonomous determination, they were put at the far right of the self-determination continuum. For example, since the act to transmit Taiwanese and the awareness of maintaining Taiwanese-speaking ability are more about inherent

61

satisfactions, they were considered to be the prototypic instance of self-determination.

Next, the most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation is integrated regulation and statements related to self-expressiveness were put under this regulation. Because the needs and values of speaking Taiwanese represent the integrity of the self, which corresponds to Ryan and Deci’s definition, they were regarded as integrated regulation. Third, statements about solidarity were classified as identified regulation since the attitudes toward Taiwanese reflects a conscious valuing of a behavioral goal or regulation. For instance, speaking Taiwanese to other Taiwanese-speaking friends is a way to shorten social distance, so this behavior comes forth from the effect of speaking the language. With regard to introjected regulation in which behaviors are performed to avoid guilt or anxiety or to attain ego enhancements, the statements related to social status and communication match this regulation. Finally, the least autonomous form of extrinsic motivation is external regulation in which behaviors are performed to satisfy an external demand or reward contingency. For example, the statement regarding Taiwanese-speaking ability in employment is about an external pressure and thus it leaned closely to the side of non-self-determination. Another statement of upward mobility “Taiwanese is a medium of learning” was categorized as introjected regulation since people are internally-motived and their behaviors have an external perceived locus of causality. Hence, it is located on the continuum between introjected regulation and external regulation.

As indicated by Ryan and Deci (2000: 22-23), external regulation and introjected regulation are more interpersonally and intrapersonally controlled respectively. Hence they are combined to form a controlled motivation composite. Identified, integrated, and intrinsic forms of regulations are more close to the other side of the self-determination continuum, and thus they are combined to form an autonomous motivation composite. In Chapter 5, autonomous motivation and controlled

62

motivation will be categorized as integrative and instrumental motivations respectively. This classification is consistent with Gardner and Lambert’s (1972) distinction on language learning motivation.

Regarding statistics, firstly an average score of each statement is observed;

subsequently the discussion on subjects’ intrinsic-extrinsic orientation on Taiwanese is undertaken by looking at the data shown in each orientation (i.e., intrinsic orientation:

transmission and identity; integrated regulation: self-expressiveness; identified regulation: solidarity; introjected regulation: marker of social status and communication; external regulation: upward mobility). Moreover, in order to verify the relation of statements in each category, Pearson’s correlation test was applied to check the degree of correlation. Besides, sometimes a mean score cannot objectively reflect the patterns of subjects’ agreement (or disagreement). For example, a score 3.28 indicates the average rating, but the distribution of subjects’ responses might vary.

Hence, in order to avoid a possible bias caused by mean scores, the five category responses were collapsed into three types of comments: agree (strongly agree and disagree), no comments, and disagree (strongly disagree and disagree). Percentage was used to display the distribution of the subjects’ responses. Appendix 2 provides a completed version of the responses to the three types of comments obtained from Taipei and Kaohsiung areas. The percentage helps to explain subjects’ tendency in responding to the statements.

In order to know how regional differences in language use and language attitudes are related, Pearson’s correlation test was applied to examine Taiwanese proficiency and attitudes reported by the participants. The statements chosen to represent the subjects’ attitudes are those listed in Table 3.2.

63